dickens1298
Dormant account
- Joined
- May 30, 2004
- Location
- LA, California
guesswest said:Yes 7-1 isn't right, have been cogniscent of it in this thread for the last few posts but didn't bring it up, it was kinda immaterial and I thought it would just complicate things unnecessarily - is just under 5-1 (44 cards not 45) as sweet says but is still more than big enough that it represents huge PE, so it doesn't really matter. Key is that me hitting a boat is irrelevant, since the A10h are already out and don't reduce his drawing cards, both myself and dickens missed that originally.
I don't agree that it's a bad thing him thinking I don't have a heart here. Remember, him chasing a flush draw is hugely advantageous to me, and he's much more likely to chase one if he thinks it's going to be good. Why wouldn't you want to give information to another player about your hand if that information was going to make them more likely to do what you want? I want him to chase, so if I can give him information that persuades him to do so, all the better. Not that I'm convinced that this bet does that anyway, it could easily be a semibluff on a draw myself, etc. I'd probably in fact make a similar sized bet had I flopped a flush here, against this particular player. Always slowplaying big hands and fastplaying small hands is very readable. But anyways, if he reads it as a shutout bet because I don't have a heart, great. I also get what sweet is saying about implicit collusion, but it doesn't really apply here as I'm in a heads up pot, and even if it wasn't heads up, PE is still the same it just has more variance. Simply, the bets I made represented nothing close to pot odds, and 1/2 pot odds (though they were actually more like 1/3 anyway) are miles away from callable. IMO using bet size to create PE against a drawing hand when you're confident in your read is always the right play, the only exception is when a grey area is created at the river that can screw you up, but that's not applicable here as I was all-in at the turn.
The funny thing to me in this whole thread, is if this particular player was reading it, I have a suspicion he'd be looking at it like it was written in a foreign language - I don't honestly think he considered pot odds, what I had, what he was drawing to, any of it, at all.
And RE: dickens, I didn't say I'd fold if he went all-in, I said I'd fold if he doubled me. But yes, point taken, I was prepared to pay $30 to ask a question, in view of the rewards for being able to eliminate certain hands, and it turned out to be a profitable play to do so. My play was for sure tailored to my specific opponent, one I'd been watching for a while, it's not the same play I'd make against any random individual.
It's quite likely I won't play this particular player again it's true, but I will find myself against players just as poor, and way better, and even worse etc. I'll probably eventually play this exact same hand again. Taking PE is always profitable in the long term, that an entrenched fact, and again, the result of this hand was a good one.
Yes, taking PE is always profitable in the long term, but you had no idea that you had the edge, since he could have easily flopped a flush - especially with a flush flop on the board. With him holding a potential flush, you were betting into a negative expectation situation, since your only hope of winning the hand was to draw to a full boat.